Quote:
|
Would you care to expand on why it was not a good idea to shoot through them?
|
If the glass was still in the doors, there are obvious problems. First, shooting through glass is a bad idea, as even a warning shot will throw glass at the person outside the door.
case in point, a raid on a drug house involved a glass door in the county south of here. Back sliding door was locked. Deputy smashed it with his shotgun a couple times, but gee, recoil pads won't break glass. He fired the shotgun through the door, which was curtained, and blasted glass into a resident that was just inside the door. The guy was disciplined for that shot and the department was sued, iirc
Not an absolute comparison, I know.
In this case, if I understand, the invader was
outside. firing a warning shot at an invader outside your home, when there is plenty of opportunity to move away, no weapon presented, and no definite imminent threat of danger, is not good. If the door was open or the glass broken, it would have been a whole lot smarter of the old guy to wait at least until a weapon was presented or the guy broke the external line of that door, and actually entered the home with at least a hand or foot, and then, used deadly force. No warning shots at the guy outside, let him in, and engage in defensible deadly force.
Use of deadly force does not
HAVE to lead to a fatality. He had a carbiine. He could have stuck it in the guys mouth and pulled the trigger as he stood there screaming, or he could have jabbed it into his belly and double tapped him in the navel, or he could have even knocked loose a knee or femur with a joint shot.
Shooting outside the home and hitting an unarmed man was a bad idea, no matter the outcome. Inside the home the legal situation changes astronomically. The way it reads, there would have been no significant change in the tactical situation either way if the guy had waited until the intruder actually passed into or through the door.